hypervalent_iodine

! Moderator Note barfbag, This thread isn't about you or why (for what seems like the millionth time) you can't follow the rules. Please stay focussed on the topic. Alain has made a good effort at directing positive discussion and you'd do well to follow his lead. Finally, the insulting tone that you take here is not going to be tolerated. Drop it, now, or we will eventually get sick of telling you. Do not respond to this modnote in-thread.

Your explanation of the mechanism seems a little garbled. All that is happening is the OH- is hydrolysing the ester in preference to deprotonating at the alpha position. The next part I think is because the carboxylic acid you get as a result contains an acidic hydrogen and the ethoxide will react with that instead of the alpha hydrogens required to give a positive iodoform test.

! Moderator Note Please do not use this site as your soap box. If you have something to discuss, please discuss it.

! Moderator Note This is a science forum, not a conspiracy forum. If you have something substantial to add to your post, start a new thread and elaborate with evidence. This thread is closed. Edit: never mind. I'm just going to ban you as a sockpuppet instead.

After some discussion, the duplicate account of Mrs Zeta, Marios Kyriazis, has been banned. Despite his claim to the contrary, he did not have to create a new account at all. He was informed that moderators could not change his name (we don't have those powers) and not being happy with that, created a new account. Though perhaps harmless, we did not like the precedent it set. ----------------- meldyer has been banned as yet another joshgreen sockpuppet.

! Moderator Note We don't allow members to post video-only threads. If you wish to discuss something, please make more of an attempt to introduce what you wish to talk about in the text of your OP.

Install some insulation.

laster has been banned as a joshgreen sockpuppet.

! Moderator Note You already have a thread on almost exactly this topic. Please do not open any more.

winger has been banned as a sockpuppet of joshgreen, who has also been suspended for a week for the same offence in addition to being an abusive troll.

! Moderator Note winger, If you can't post anything productive, kindly don't bother. Your attitude is not welcome here.

There is already a biochemistry section under its rightful banner, biology.

! Moderator Note After some discussion, staff have decided that it would be unfair to close a thread because someone else has taken it upon themselves to derail it. Wild Cobra, this means that any post you make in this thread that is preachy or in other ways off topic will be immediately trashed and you will risk your account being suspended.

! Moderator Note I think this is a good place to end this thread. Marshalscienceguy, these sorts of concerns are best left to your doctor and not to the members of an online forum.

! Moderator Note naturephysic2345, This is getting really old. The main science section of this forum is for mainstream science ONLY. If you keep hijacking threads like this, we will ban you.

At a complete guess: Markers are used to determine the size of your DNA fragments. You have 4 of differing amounts, which indicates to me that you are using these to generate a standard curve so you can relate their known concentrations with whatever physical trait you are measuring (absorbance, etc.). This allows you to quantify the concentration of DNA in your sample. The two DNA wells are probably just replicates so you can get an average and a more accurate idea of the concentration of your samples. Edit: I didn't see you'd used different concentrations of your DNA. Not sure why that is.

Trial and error is a very poor way if approaching a question like this. If you use the appropriate methods, you will spend much less time on it.

! Moderator Note i-try, Your refusal to post models and give some sort of evidence means that this thread is closed. You are not permitted to reintroduce the topic. When you are quoting other members, please try and use the quote function. It's clunky, but it is much preferred over to the way you are posting. Please also remove the condescending tone from your posts.

I think the counter takes a little while to catch up, same with thread views.

Here's what I get with half equations. Excluding spectator ions, the equation comes to: H+ + As2O3 + NO3- + H2O --> NO + H3AsO4 The As goes from As (3+) to As (+5) and the N from N (+5) to N (+2) Oxidation: As2O3 + 5H2O --> 2H3AsO4 + 4H+ + 4e Reduction: NO3- + 4H+ + 3e --> NO + 2H2O Balancing the electrons gives: 3As2O3 + 15H2O --> 6H3AsO4 + 12H+ + 12e 4NO3- + 16H+ + 12e --> 4NO + 8H2O Combining: 3As2O3 + 7H2O + 4NO3- + 4H+ --> 6H3AsO4 + 4NO Adding the spectator ions back: 3As2O3 + 7H2O + 4NaNO3 + 4HCl --> 6H3AsO4 + 4NO + 4NaCl Edit: Your method seems to have worked (I haven't checked it), but it seems awfully complicated. Where were you going wrong with the half equations?

Sure. I'm curious to know where you ran into trouble with the half equation method? Did you remember to exclude spectator ions?

At a quick glance, you should be balancing this using half equations rather than how you seem to be doing it. Are you familiar with how to do this at all?

What exactly do you mean by different molecules of the same element? These are two distinct things. Do you mean allotropes?

Basing your interpretation of an article from its abstract is often a bad idea. That being said, an abstract is a good way to screen papers (as in, figure out if they're worth reading or not). If you actually need to cite information from it, you would have to go a bit deeper into the results. Which parts you chose to read and which parts you skip I would think is something you determine on a case by case basis. It depends largely on why you're reading the paper in the first place and what you're hoping to extract from it. It can be hard to know straight away how reliable a paper is without some amount detailed reading if the paper is new or is reporting something novel / controversial. Otherwise, I think that it can be a fairly simple process provided you already have a decent knowledge of the area and the work that has already been done in it. If the results of a paper are more or less in line with the literary consensus, then it should be okay. You don't need to read much beyond the abstract to determine this. The journal that a paper is published in can give some information about the quality of a paper, but this is not always true and I would be very cautious of using it as a definitive measure unless you know for sure that the journal is terrible. Bad papers can be published in good journals and vice versa. If you want a more in-depth review of a paper's worth, it will require a bit more effort and reading. You would probably need to do this if the paper is making novel claims. An analysis of how good the statistical aspects of the paper are is maybe one indication, though it requires that you know how to interpret these parts of the paper (which you probably should) and of course, many papers don't need this sort of analysis. You can check subsequent articles that cite the paper, but that doesn't work if the paper is new or in an area that is not researched by many groups. In my experience in synthetic organic chemistry, both of these things can be a problem. Many papers have no statistics in them whatsoever and the discipline is both diverse and obscure enough that it is common for a good paper with well-executed research that is several years old to have barely any citations. In these cases, you have to use your own knowledge to pull apart their methods and look at their supporting information (spectra, etc.) to see if it makes sense or otherwise, just repeat the experiment yourself. I'm sure there are other methods people much more familiar with this sort of thing use that I may be missing, so hopefully someone else will contribute their learned opinion on the matter.

! Moderator Note The problem with this is that we don't generally permit speculative claims without sometng substantive to support them. I respect that you may not have easy access to these because they are from ten years ago, but at the same time, you can hardly expect anybody to take your vague recollection of these decade-old sources seriously. Please also refrain from the use of logical fallacy. It is not particularly good way to try and get your point across and it will be both picked up and picked apart very quickly here. Whether or not you deem a paper to sound complicated or even more complicated than other papers in no way makes them valid. Again, do not respond to this modnote in-thread.